Systemic pesticide-related abuses include farmworkers exposed to hazardous chemicals without protective gear or training and contamination of rural water sources. (Flickr)
The measure of a society’s commitment to human rights “lies not in what we promise, but in what we deliver, particularly to the most vulnerable in our society”.
This was emphasised by Philile Ntuli, a commissioner at the South African Human Rights Commission, on the first day of a two-day colloquium on pesticide reform. The event, hosted by the department of agriculture, aimed to develop a modern, rights-based policy framework for managing pesticides.
“We can have the best Constitution and constitutional framework and establish laws that are revered across the world, but if these are not accompanied by policies and regulations that are enforceable and protective to the most vulnerable, they are meaningless,” said Ntuli.
South Africans, especially farmworkers and others living in rural areas, “rely on us to ensure that the food that they eat, the water that they drink and the land that they inherit is safe”.
The colloquium brought together government officials, farmer associations, scientists, civil society, industry, labour, farmworkers and human rights organisations for a multi-sector dialogue on pesticide reform and environmental justice.
Ntuli reminded delegates that although the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to life, dignity, food and an environment that is not harmful, investigations by the commission have repeatedly revealed systemic pesticide-related abuses.
These include farmworkers exposed to hazardous pesticides without protective gear or training; pesticide contamination of rural water sources; food safety risks from residues on produce and the lack of accessible and transparent information for rural communities.
“The history shows that pesticides are not merely an agricultural or environmental issue; they are fundamentally a human rights issue,” she said.
According to UnPoison, an advocacy group specialising in pesticide regulation, the colloquium marked a serious effort to replace South Africa’s “prehistoric” Farm Feeds, Fertiliser, and Agrochemical Remedies Act 36 of 1947, shifting toward a unified, science-based, socially accountable system.
It also aimed to finally implement the 2010 Pesticide Management Policy, which has remained dormant for 15 years. This policy was designed around a One Health approach, integrating human, animal, plant, and environmental health.
Ntuli stressed that the 2010 policy made important commitments, including phasing out highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) and safeguarding workers and communities. But, she said, progress has been slow.
“Our laws are outdated — Act 36 of 1947, which predates the apartheid era, still governs pesticide use, with weak penalties and major gaps in worker protection,” said Ntuli. “Monitoring is inconsistent, enforcement is weak, and many seasonal and migrant workers are exposed without training or protective equipment.”
She urged the government to adopt modern pesticide laws aligned with human rights, with strong enforcement, better monitoring, and investment in safer alternatives.
In June, the cabinet banned the import and sale of Terbufos, a highly toxic organophosphate pesticide, after the deaths of six children in Naledi, Soweto, from accidental pesticide poisoning in October 2024.
Ntuli welcomed the move, describing it as a “powerful commitment to public health, environmental justice and the dignity of the most vulnerable”.
However, she called for broader reforms, urging the government to ban other HHPs already outlawed internationally.
HHPs are pesticides that can cause serious harm to human health, the environment, and agricultural sustainability. Although all pesticides are dangerous, HHPs are considered particularly risky. These pesticides can lead to acute or long-term health issues, including cancers, birth defects, and organ damage. They harm wildlife, soil and water.
“The pesticide management policy gave us a clear and commendable vision in 2010,” Ntuli said. “It is now our collective responsibility to turn that vision into reality.”
Colette Solomon, the director of the Women on Farms Project, highlighted the historical injustices underpinning South African agriculture, with most farmworkers and dwellers still landless and dependent on labour for survival.
“It’s important to remember that because of that history, and despite 30 years post-1994, there still exist significant race, class and gender power inequalities on farms,” Solomon said.
“Women farmworkers, especially seasonal workers, have very little power to assert and claim the rights which they have.”
She argued that the state has failed farmworkers, allowing the registration of pesticides banned in other countries.
“It has failed farmworkers by allowing the importation and registration of pesticides that are banned in the European Union because they are so harmful. Why are we allowing such pesticides to be registered here? Do the lives of black farmworkers not matter?”
Solomon also criticised the department for what she described as regulatory capture, giving CropLife South Africa “disproportionate and worrying” influence over policy.
“There are laws,” she said, “but they are poorly monitored, weakly enforced, and there is no legal action taken against farmers who, season after season, violate farmworkers’ rights.”
She pointed to Kenya’s ban of 50 HHPs earlier this year as an example of decisive action.
“The department of agriculture needs to take very seriously the phasing out of pesticides and invest in alternatives such as biopesticides.”
In 2023, Andrea Rother, the head of the Environmental Health Division at UCT’s School of Public Health, published research showing Terbufos caused over half of all child deaths linked to pesticide poisoning in a 10-year review at a Cape Town mortuary.
“Terbufos and methamidophos are highly hazardous pesticide active ingredients registered in South Africa for agricultural uses, yet commonly sold as street pesticides for domestic use in lower socioeconomic areas,” the study found.
Reducing the availability of these toxic pesticides and providing less-toxic alternatives to poor communities would save lives, the researchers said.
“We actually brought it to the government in February, and in October we had a set of children who died [in Naledi],” she said. “Evidence policy-making is only going to work if the evidence actually gets to the policymakers.”
Rother stressed that children need to be at the centre of pesticide legislation. “Children aren’t little adults. Their metabolism and exposure are completely different. They eat more, breathe more, and their developing organs make them more vulnerable.”
She called for South Africa to follow the US model, which applies a ten-fold safety factor to food children eat, such as apples and applesauce. “If we had policy focused on children, the elderly and the immune-compromised would automatically be protected because your benchmark would be children.”
Rodney Bell, of CropLife South Africa, cautioned against relying solely on bans. “What worries me is that we are erring on the side of potentially thinking that banning products is the only way of solving all the issues we’ve heard today. Banning a product has not stopped the illegal leakage into the country.”
He pointed to South Africa’s porous borders, which allow unregistered pesticides to enter in finished packaging.
“We need to fix a whole lot of other stuff as well,” he said. “We need to do this collectively, based on science, without emotions.”
Bell urged policymakers to consider the unintended consequences for farmers before removing products without viable alternatives. “I’m not saying the loss of life is justified to keep a product on the market. Absolutely not. But are we at least doing the socio-economic assessments before we just want to remove a product?”
The colloquium concluded with commitments from the department including public access to the national pesticide registration database within two weeks; the revival of an interdepartmental government committee to address legislative fragmentation, the formal adoption of a One Health framework for risk assessment and policy; increased technical capacity in the pesticide registration office; banning problematic pesticides already prohibited elsewhere; and greater transparency and inclusion, particularly of farmworkers and civil society.
“For the first time in history, civil society was not merely in the room, but at the table,” said Anna Shevel, coordinator of UnPoison.
The department has faced criticism for bureaucratic inertia and regulatory capture, but experts say the colloquium signals a new chapter.
“The transparency, willingness to acknowledge past mistakes, and intent to reorganise give us hope that meaningful change will follow,” said UCT public health specialist Leslie London.
Shevel emphasised that the ultimate goal is future-proofing agriculture.
“The outcomes we are advocating for are not about dismantling agriculture; they’re about future-proofing it,” she said. “Every stakeholder — from farmworkers to regulators — shares a goal: to protect farming viability while safeguarding health and ecosystems. This is about a win-win-win path forward: thriving agriculture, protected communities, and restored ecosystems.”